#best civil cases

[aarattorneyallianceadvocate]

Best Lawyer in Delhi

I am advocate Aditya Mishra Supreme Court of India

Fight for Your Rights and legal needs

[bonefall]

speaking of. would cats like Blackclaw and Greenflower and other members TigerClan fandom be sent to Dark Forest? or have a trial? or would they somehow repent enough in life during Mistystar's regin (im pressing x to doubt that though)?

i want Stonefur, Primrosepaw and Pikepaw to personally roundhouse kick Blackclaw, but i can understand if they would want to stay away from him too (at least the kids. Stonefur should be the first to throw.. a stone.)

A lot of them are going to get recruited, even if they may have won a trial. Those who die in the WindClan Civil War willl get damned immediately; StarClan is FURIOUS that trecherous rebels in other Clans tried to take advantage of the political situation.

Mudclaw the Hypocrite, who accuses Onestar of being a puppet of outside influences, promised power to a RiverClan warrior in exchange for mercenaries to brutalize his own Clanmates. HELL! Hell for ALL of them!

Those that survive probably don't have enough time to make up for it. They would also have been supportive of TigerClan, so they're earmarked already. Even those who didn't throw their weight behind the Civil War have quite the tally of sins to manage.

(And... at least one of them, I'm unsure of who, were involved in the "disappearences" of Primrosepaw and Pikepaw. Whoever they are, StarClan will not hold a trial nor send a fetcher. They can find their own way to the Dark Forest, without even a Sharing of Stars to fix their mortal wounds.)

Also for the record let me just clarify something; StarClan judges based on if you are "worthy" of joining them. They do rule in neutral-favor for an unremarkable warrior, but if your life is enough of a question to trigger a Trial at all, you are guilty until proven innocent.

More specifically, "unworthy" until proven worthy. StarClan Trials are not held with "fairness" as a value.

[rmbunnie]

Red Hood Characterization

This is really long so I'm putting a cut here, I've been thinking about Jason Todd's character motivations and the question of whether or not his actions are based in a Moral Code (I don't think so, not to say he's without any morality) and I talk about that in more depth here.

I saw someone say on here that Titans: Beast World: Gotham City was some of the best Jason Todd internal writing they'd seen in a while, and I've been a Red Hood fan for 8 years or so now? pretty much since I read comics for the first time, so I went and checked out and I thought it was good! The way the person I saw talking about it as if it was rare and unusual made me wonder though, because as well-written as i thought his stances on crime were, there wasn't really anything in it that went against the way I conceptualize Jason?

This kinda plays into a larger question I've been thinking about for a while with Jason though, which is that, do people think that the killing is part of a fundamental worldview that motivates him a la batman, and that worldview is the reason he does the things he does?? Because 8 years ago i was a middle schooler engaging with fiction on the level that a middle schooler does, so I simply did not put much thought into it beyond "poor guy :(" but ever since I actually started trying to understand consistent characterization, I don't really see Jason as someone who's motivated by a moral code in his actions the way batman or superman is!

tbh my personal read is that he's a very socially-motivated guy, his actions from resurrection to his Joker-Batman ultimatum in utrh always seemed to me like every choice made leading up to his identity reveal was either a. to give him the leverage and skill necessary to pull off his identity reveal successfully, or b. to twist the knife that little bit more when he does let Bruce find out who he is. Like iirc there's a Judd Winick tweet like "yeah tldr he chose Red Hood as his identity because it's the lowest blow he could think of." And I think that's awesome, I think character motivations rooted so deeply in character's relationships and emotions are really fun to read! I also think it's where the stagnation/flatness of his character comes from in certain comics, because if his main motivation is one event in one relationship that passes, and he is not particularly attached to anything in his life or the world by the time that comes to pass, it's a little harder to come up with a direction to go with the character after that, because there isn't much of a direction that aligns with something the character would reasonably want? But I do think solving this by saying "all of the morally-off emotionally driven cruelty he did on his way to spite Batman was actually reflective of his own version of Batman's stance that's exactly the same except he thinks it's GOOD to kill people" isn't ideal. To be fully honest, it seems to me like he never particularly cared one way or the other about killing people to "clean Gotham of crime," he just did everything he could to get the power necessary to pull off his personal plans, and took out any particularly heinous people he encountered along the way (like in Lost Days.) Not to say I think the fact he killed people keeps him up at night anymore than everything else in his life events, I just never really thought he was out there wholeheartedly kneecapping some dude selling weed or random guy robbing a tv store for justice.

Looping wayyy back to my question, Is this (^) contradictory to the way he's written/the overall average perception of the character? Because like I enjoyed his writing in Beast World i have zero significant issue with anything there, I just didn't believe it would be a hot take, like yeah, that is Jason. It's been a while since I've read utrh and lost days, but I don't think my takeaway directly contradicts either of those too bad iirc. Idk all this to say I think Jason killing and being alright with killing is an obvious and objective fact, but i guess i've always seen it as more of a practical tactic than a moral belief, and I think taking the actions made during the lowest points of a character's life where he is obsessively focused on this ONEEEE thing and trying to apply it as a Motivating Stance to everything he's done after that, doesn't really follow logically for me.

[empty-blog-for-lurking]

in the time travel lance au, how much did lance tell the team/lotor? do they know hes from the future and that hes lance and how much things went to shit, or is he keeping the info from them(i mean you said hes doing that, but im curious as to how much hes actually letting them know)? also wait hold on. does the whole time travel situation mean that there are TWO lances running around now??

Pretty sure Lance tells them absolutely nothing. Just absolutely nothing. Fuck All. At best you can expect from him is vague riddles, very specific advice, and a 10-minute long call out session in Lotor's case where he drags him for every issue he ever had and after which he fucks off to do god knows what. And while Lance does try to keep his identity hidden, not to mention lets just say he is Off Putting enough to the point that the aliens do not connect him to any of the humans (except Kuron who recognized a movie reference).

And there are two Lances running around, though because of future!Lance, Shiro didnt reach Earth and instead he met Allura who got out from cryopod earlier

[wonder-worker]

Queen Margaret (of Anjou) had written to the Common Council in November when the news of the Duke of York's coup was proclaimed. The letter from the queen was published in modernised English by M.A.E. Wood in 1846, and she dated it to February 1461 because of its opening sentence: ‘And whereas the late Duke of N [York]...." However the rest of the letter, and that of the prince, is in the present tense and clearly indicates that the Duke of York is still alive. The reference to the ‘late duke’ is not to his demise but to the attainder of 1459 when he was stripped of his titles as well as of his lands. If the queen’s letter dates to November 1460, and not February 1461, it make perfect sense. Margaret declared the Duke of York had ‘upon an untrue pretense, feigned a title to my lord’s crown’ and in so doing had broken his oath of fealty. She thanked the Londoners for their loyalty in rejecting his claim. She knew of the rumours, that we and my lords sayd sone and owrs shuld newly drawe toward yow with an vnsome [uncounted] powere of strangars, disposed to robbe and to dispoyle yow of yowr goods and havours, we will that ye knowe for certeyne that . . . . [y]e, nor none of yow, shalbe robbed, dispoyled nor wronged by any parson that at that tyme we or owr sayd sone shalbe accompanied with She entrusted the king's person to the care of the citizens ‘so that thrwghe malice of his sayde enemye he be no more trowbled vexed ne jeoparded.’ In other words the queen was well informed in November 1460 of the propaganda in London concerning the threat posed by a Lancastrian military challenge to the illegal Yorkist proceedings. Margaret assured the Common Council that no harm would come to the citizenry or to their property. Because the letter was initially misdated, it has been assumed that the queen wrote it after she realised the harm her marauding troops were doing to her cause, and to lull London into a false sense of security. This is not the case, and it is a typical example of historians accepting without question Margaret’s character as depicted in Yorkist propaganda. Margaret’s letter was a true statement of her intentions but it made no impact at the time and has made none since. How many people heard of it? The Yorkist council under the Earl of Warwick, in collusion with the Common Council of the city, was in an ideal position to suppress any wide dissemination of the letter, or of its content.

... When Margaret joined the Lancastrian lords it is unlikely that she had Scottish troops with her. It is possible that Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, sent men from Wales but there was no compelling reason why he should, he needed all the forces at his disposal to face Edward Earl of March, now Duke of York following his father’s death at Wakefield, who, in fact, defeated Pembroke at Mortimer’s Cross on 2 February just as the Lancastrian army was marching south. The oft repeated statement that the Lancastrian army was composed of a motley array of Scots, Welsh, other foreigners (French by implication, for it had not been forgotten that René of Anjou, Queen Margaret’s father, had served with the French forces in Nomandy when the English were expelled from the duchy, nor that King Charles VII was her uncle) as well as northern men is based on a single chronicle, the Brief Notes written mainly in Latin in the monastery of Ely, and ending in 1470. It is a compilation of gossip and rumour, some of it wildly inaccurate, but including information not found in any other contemporary source, which accounts for the credence accorded to it. The Dukes of Somerset and Exeter and the Earl of Devon brought men from the south and west. The Earl of Northumberland was not solely reliant on his northern estates; as Lord Poynings he had extensive holdings in the south. The northerners were tenants and retainers of Northumberland, Clifford, Dacre, the Westmorland Nevilles, and Fitzhugh, and accustomed to the discipline of border defence. The continuator of Gregory’s Chronicle, probably our best witness, is emphatic that the second battle of St Albans was won by the ‘howseholde men and feyd men.” Camp followers and auxiliaries of undesirables there undoubtedly were, as there are on the fringes of any army, but the motley rabble the queen is supposed to have loosed on peaceful England owes more to the imagination of Yorkist propagandists than to the actual composition of the Lancastrian army.

... Two differing accounts of the Lancastrian march on London are generally accepted. One is that a large army, moving down the Great North Road, was made up of such disparate and unruly elements that the queen and her commanders were powerless to control it.” Alternatively, Queen Margaret did not wish to curb her army, but encouraged it to ravage all lands south of the Trent, either from sheet spite or because it was the only way she could pay her troops.” Many epithets have been applied to the queen, few of them complimentary, but no one has as yet called her stupid. It would have been an act of crass stupidity wilfully to encourage her forces to loot the very land she was trying to restore to an acceptance of Lancastrian rule, with her son as heir to the throne. On reaching St Albans, so the story goes, the Lancastrian army suddenly became a disciplined force which, by a series of complicated manoeuvres, including a night march and a flank attack, won the second battle of St Albans, even though the Yorkists were commanded by the redoubtable Earl of Warwick. The explanation offered is that the rabble element, loaded down with plunder, had descended before the battle and only the household men remained. Then the rabble reappeared, and London was threatened. To avert a sack of the city the queen decided to withdraw the army, either on her own initiative or urged by the peace-loving King Henry; as it departed it pillaged the Abbey of St Albans, with the king and queen in residence, and retired north, plundering as it went. Nevertheless, it was sufficiently intact a month later to meet and nearly defeat the Yorkist forces at Towton, the bloodiest and hardest fought battle of the civil war thus far. The ‘facts’ as stated make little sense, because they are seen through the distorting glass of Yorkist propaganda.

The ravages allegedly committed by the Lancastrian army are extensively documented in the chronicles, written after the event and under a Yorkist king. They are strong on rhetoric but short on detail. The two accounts most often quoted are by the Croyland Chronicle and Abbott Whethamstede. There is no doubting the note of genuine hysterical fear in both. The inhabitants of the abbey of Crowland were thoroughly frightened by what they believed would happen as the Lancastrians swept south. ‘What do you suppose must have been our fears . . . [w]hen every day rumours of this sad nature were reaching our ears.’ Especially alarming was the threat to church property. The northern men ‘irreverently rushed, in their unbridled and frantic rage into churches . . . [a]nd most nefariously plundered them.’ If anyone resisted ‘they cruelly slaughtered them in the very churches or churchyards.’ People sought shelter for themselves and their goods in the abbey,“ but there is not a single report of refugees seeking succour in the wake of the passage of the army after their homes had been burned and their possessions stolen. The Lancastrians were looting, according to the Crowland Chronicle, on a front thirty miles wide ‘like so many locusts.“ Why, then, did they come within six miles but bypass Crowland? The account as a whole makes it obvious that it was written considerably later than the events it so graphically describes.

The claim that Stamford was subject to a sack from which it did not recover is based on the Tudor antiquary John Leland. His attribution of the damage is speculation; by the time he wrote stories of Lancastrian ravages were well established, but outside living memory. His statement was embellished by the romantic historian Francis Peck in the early eighteenth century. Peck gives a spirited account of Wakefield and the Lancastrian march, influenced by Tudor as well as Yorkist historiography. … As late as 12 February when Warwick moved his troops to St Albans it is claimed that he did not know the whereabouts of the Lancastrians, an odd lack of military intelligence about an army that was supposed to be leaving havoc in its wake. The Lancastrians apparently swerved to the west after passing Royston which has puzzled military historians because they accept that it came down the Great North Road, but on the evidence we have it is impossible to affirm this. If it came from York via Grantham, Leicester, Market Harborough, Northampton and Stony Stratford to Dunstable, where the first engagement took place, there was no necessity to make an inexplicable swerve westwards because its line of march brought it to Dunstable and then to St Albans. The Lancastrians defeated Warwick’s army on 17 February 1461 and Warwick fled the field. In an echo of Wakefield there is a suggestion of treachery. An English Chronicle tells the story of one Thomas Lovelace, a captain of Kent in the Yorkist ranks, who also appears in Waurin. Lovelace, it is claimed, was captured at Wakefield and promised Queen Margaret that he would join Warwick and then betray and desert him, in return for his freedom.

Lt. Colonel Bume, in a rare spirit of chivalry, credits Margaret with the tactical plan that won the victory, although only because it was so unorthodox that it must have been devised by a woman. But there is no evidence that Margaret had any military flair, let alone experience. A more likely candidate is the veteran captain Andrew Trolloppe who served with Warwick when the latter was Captain of Calais, but he refused to fight under the Yorkist banner against his king at Ludford in 1459 when Warwick brought over a contingent of Calais men to defy King Henry in the field. It was Trolloppe’s ‘desertion’ at Ludford, it is claimed, that forced the Yorkists to flee. The most objective and detailed account of the battle of St Albans is by the unknown continuator of Gregory’s Chronicle. The chronicle ends in 1469 and by that time it was safe to criticise Warwick, who was then out of favour. The continuator was a London citizen who may have fought in the Yorkist ranks. He had an interest in military matters and recorded the gathering of the Lancastrian army at Hull, before Wakefield, and the detail that the troops wore the Prince of Wales’ colours and ostrich feathers on their livery together with the insignia of their lords. He had heard the rumours of a large ill-disciplined army, but because he saw only the household men he concluded that the northerners ran away before the battle. Abbot Whethamstede wrote a longer though far less circumstantial account, in which he carefully made no mention of the Earl of Warwick. … Margaret of Anjou had won the battle but she proceeded to lose the war. London lay open to her and she made a fatal political blunder in retreating from St Albans instead of taking possession of the capital.' Although mistaken, her reasons for doing so were cogent. The focus of contemporary accounts is the threat to London from the Lancastrian army. This is repeated in all the standard histories, and even those who credit Margaret with deliberately turning away from London do so for the wrong reasons.

... The uncertainties and delays, as well as the hostility of some citizens, served to reinforce Margaret’s belief that entry to London could be dangerous. It was not what London had to fear from her but what she had to fear from London that made her hesitate. Had she made a show of riding in state into the city with her husband and son in a colourful procession she might have accomplished a Lancastrian restoration, but Margaret had never courted popularity with the Londoners, as Warwick had, and she had kept the court away from the capital for several years in the late 1450s, a move that was naturally resented. Warwick’s propaganda had tarnished her image, associating her irrevocably with the dreaded northern men. There was also the danger that if Warwick and Edward of March reached London with a substantial force she could be trapped inside a hostile city, and she cannot have doubted that once she and Prince Edward were taken prisoner the Lancastrian dynasty would come to an end. Understandably, at the critical moment, Margaret lost her nerve. ... Queen Margaret did not march south in 1461 in order to take possession of London, but to recover the person of the king. She underestimated the importance of the capital to her cause." Although she had attempted to establish the court away from London, the Yorkist lords did not oppose her for taking the government out of the capital, but for excluding them from participation in it. Nevertheless London became the natural and lucrative base for the Yorkists, of which they took full advantage. The author of the Annales was in no doubt that it was Margaret’s failure to enter London that ensured the doom of the Lancastrian dynasty. A view shared, of course, by the continuator of Gregory’s Chronicle, a devoted Londoner:

He that had Londyn for sake Wolde no more to hem take The king, queen and prince had been in residence at the Abbey of St Albans since the Lancastrian victory. Abbot Whethamstede, at his most obscure, conveys a strong impression that St Albans was devastated because the Lancastrian leaders, including Queen Margaret, encouraged plundering south of the Trent in lieu of wages. There must have been some pillaging by an army which had been kept in a state of uncertainty for a week, but whether it was as widespread or as devastating as the good abbot, and later chroniclers, assert is by no means certain. Whethamstede is so admirably obtuse that his rhetoric confuses both the chronology and the facts. So convoluted and uncircumstantial is his account that the eighteenth century historian of the abbey, the Reverend Peter Newcome, was trapped into saying: ‘These followers of the Earl of March were looked on as monsters in barbarity.’ He is echoed by Antonia Gransden who has ‘the conflict between the southemers of Henry’s army and the nonherners of Edward’s. The abbey was not pillaged, but Whethamstede blackened Queen Margaret’s reputation by a vague accusation that she appropriated one of the abbey’s valuable possessions before leaving for the north. This is quite likely, not in a spirit of plunder or avarice, but as a contribution to the Lancastrian war effort, just as she had extorted, or so he later claimed, a loan from the prior of Durham earlier in the year. The majority of the chroniclers content themselves with the laconic statement that the queen and her army withdrew to the north, they are more concerned to record in rapturous detail the reception of Edward IV by ‘his’ people. An English Chronicle, hostile to the last, reports that the Lancastrian army plundered its way north as remorselessly as it had on its journey south. One can only assume that it took a different route. The Lancastrian march ended where it began, in the city of York. Edward of March had himself proclaimed King Edward IV in the capital the queen had abandoned, and advanced north to win the battle of Towton on 29 March. The bid to unseat the government of the Yorkist lords had failed, and that failure brought a new dynasty into being. The Duke of York was dead, but his son was King of England whilst King Henry, Queen Margaret and Prince Edward sought shelter at the Scottish court. The Lancastrian march on London had vindicated its stated purpose, to recover the person of the king so that the crown would not continue to be a pawn in the hands of rebels and traitors, but ultimately it had failed because the Lancastrian leaders, including Queen Margaret, simply did not envisage that Edward of March would have the courage or the capacity to declare himself king. Edward IV had all the attributes that King Henry (and Queen Margaret) lacked: he was young, ruthless, charming, and the best general of his day; and in the end he out-thought as well as out-manoeuvred them.

It cannot be argued that no damage was done by the Lancastrian army. It was mid-winter, when supplies of any kind would have been short, so pillaging, petty theft, and unpaid foraging were inevitable. It kept the field for over a month and, and, as it stayed longest at Dunstable and in the environs of St Albans, both towns suffered from its presence. But the army did not indulge in systematic devastation of the countryside, either on its own account or at the behest of the queen. Nor did it contain contingents of England’s enemies, the Scots and the French, as claimed by Yorkist propaganda. Other armies were on the march that winter: a large Yorkist force moved from London to Towton and back again. There are no records of damage done by it, but equally, it cannot be claimed that there was none.

-B.M Cron, "Margaret of Anjou and the Lancastrian March on London, 1461"

[noahtally-famous]

tda featuring duntrent, gwourtney, a proper characterization for trent and his ocd, exes gwent and duncney (plus initial awkward tension to sincere friendship and solidarity), and a final two duncan and courtney would’ve slayed so hard

[carbonbasedmatter]

why is everyone including my mbti type telling me I should become an engineer💔💔

[thenotoriousscuttlecliff]

I'm as sceptical of Tom Brevoort's X-Men reboot as everyone else, but can't we wait until the issues or out or we at least know who the creators are before denouncing it as a total dumpsters fire?

I get the concern. Brevoort's record at Marvel is inconsistent at best. He oversaw Hickman's FF and Avengers, Ryan North's FF, Ewing's Ultimates, Gillen and Ribić's Eternals, and events like Secret Wars and Judgement Day. He also oversaw Slott on FF, Aaron on Avengers, and events like Civil War II and Secret Empire.

But as patchy as that record is, I'm just counting my lucky stars that it wasn't Nick Lowe taking over.

[juusasu4evagrrl]

Genuine question, does anyone want to hear about naruto from the prospective of a Liberian person grappling with the generational trauma of a brutal civil war or is that too heavy??

Like there's, I like sasuke cause he's a cool dude, very wholesome do tell, and then there's, I like sasuke cause the government also tried to eradicate my people group that one time and holding empathy for that dumbass kid teaches me to examine a my own experiences with compassion, honestly what a downer like who cares.

I don't know thoughts???

[legalassist-delhi]

What You Need to Know About Inheriting Property: A Guide for Legal Heirs(Top Lawyers For Property Case in Delhi )

When someone dies, their property doesn't just disappear. It gets passed on to their legal heirs. But who are these heirs, and what rights do they have? Let's break it down in simple terms.

Property Consultant Website | property registration in gurgaun | Top Lawyers For Property Case in Delhi

First off, who counts as a legal heir? Usually, it's close family members like spouses, children, parents, or siblings. The exact order can change depending on where you live, but these are the most common heirs.

Now, what rights do these heirs have? The main right is to inherit the deceased person's property. This could be money, houses, cars, or anything else of value. But it's not always as simple as just taking what you want.

lease deed registration in delhi | Best Delhi Lawyers for Wills / Trusts | Top Notary Services in Delhi

If the person who died left a will, it usually says who gets what. The will is like a set of instructions for dividing up the property. Heirs have the right to see this will and make sure it's followed correctly.

But what if there's no will? This is where things can get tricky. When there's no will, the law decides how to split up the property. This is called "intestate succession." Each place has its own rules for this, but generally, closer family members get first dibs.

Best Delhi Lawyers for Civil Case | Power of attorney to sell property in delhi | online property registration delhi

Heirs also have the right to challenge a will if they think something's not right. Maybe they believe the will was faked, or that someone pressured the deceased into changing it. This is a serious step, though, and usually requires going to court.

Another important right is to be informed about the estate. Heirs should know what property exists, how much debt there is, and how the estate is being managed. They can ask for this information from the executor (the person in charge of sorting out the estate).

Mutation Of Property In Delhi Ncr | Best Delhi Lawyers For Succession Certificate | Best Delhi Lawyers For Wills / Trusts

Heirs also have the right to receive their inheritance in a timely manner. The exact timing can vary, but executors can't drag their feet forever. If heirs feel things are taking too long, they can ask the court to step in.

It's worth noting that being an heir doesn't always mean you'll get something. If the deceased had a lot of debt, that has to be paid off first. Sometimes, there might not be anything left after that.

Top Recovery Agents in Delhi | online property registration delhi | Property document verification Lawyer in Delhi

Lastly, heirs have the right to refuse their inheritance. This might sound strange, but sometimes it can be helpful. For example, if the inherited property comes with a lot of debt or problems.

Stamp Duty In Delhi | Best Delhi Lawyers For Wills / Trusts | Sale Deed Registration Delhi

Understanding these rights is important for anyone who might be a legal heir. It helps ensure that the deceased person's wishes are respected and that the inheritance process is fair. If you're unsure about your rights as an heir, it's always a good idea to talk to a lawyer who specializes in this area.

property consultant in Noida | surviving member certificate delhi | probate of will in delhi

[aarattorneyallianceadvocate]

𝐀𝐀𝐑 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞

At 𝐀𝐀𝐑 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐖𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐚 𝐰𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐨𝐩-𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐡𝐢 𝐍𝐂𝐑 ⚖️ 🇮🇳. 𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐢𝐧: ✅ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐋𝐚𝐰 ✅ 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 ✅ 𝐅𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐋𝐚𝐰 ✅ 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 ✅ 𝐁𝐚𝐢𝐥 & 𝐁𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 ✅ 𝐃𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐕𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

Schedule a consultation today! ➡️+𝟗𝟏-𝟕𝟒𝟐𝟖𝟕𝟒𝟕𝟒𝟕𝟒

PropertyLawyer #DelhiNCRLawyers #BailBonds #DomesticViolenceLawyer #GunLawyers #BusinessLaw #IPLaw #ConsumerLaw #CriminalJustice #DefenseLawyer #LegalHelp #aarattorneyalliance #DivorceLawyer #FamilyMatters

[kmalawoffice]

Top Rape Case Defense Lawyer, Criminal Advocate, and Civil Lawyers in Delhi at KMA Law Office

If you are facing allegations in a rape case, it is crucial to have a knowledgeable and skilled defense lawyer by your side. At KMA Law Office, our Rape Case Defense Lawyer in Delhi are well-versed in handling sensitive and complex criminal cases. , our Best Criminal Advocate in Tis Hazari Delhi offers unparalleled expertise and dedication. Our criminal advocates are experienced in dealing with various criminal charges, from minor offenses to serious In addition to criminal defense, KMA Law Office is renowned for its expertise in civil law. Our Best Civil Lawyers in Delhi handle a wide range of civil matters, including property disputes, contractual issues, family

More Information

Click Here :-

[monsterfactoryfanfic]

if I've learned anything from grad school it's to check your sources, and this has proven invaluable in the dozens of instances when I've had an MBA-type try to tell me something about finances or leadership. Case in point:

Firefox serves me clickbaity articles through Pocket, which is fine because I like Firefox. But sometimes an article makes me curious. I'm pretty anal about my finances, and I wondered if this article was, as I suspected, total horseshit, or could potentially benefit me and help me get my spending under control. So let's check the article in question.

It mostly seems like common sense. "...track expenses and income for at least a month before setting a budget...How much money do I have or earn? How much do I want to save?" Basic shit like that. But then I get to this section:

This sounds fucking made up to me. And thankfully, they've provided a source to their claim that "research has repeatedly shown" that writing things down changes behavior. First mistake. What research is this?

Forbes, naturally, my #1 source for absolute dogshit fart-sniffing financial schlock. Forbes is the type of website that guy from high school who constantly posts on linkedin trawls daily for little articles like this that make him feel better about refusing to pay for a decent package for his employees' healthcare (I'm from the United States, a barbaric, conflict-ridden country in the throes of civil unrest, so obsessed with violence that its warlords prioritize weapons over universal medical coverage. I digress). Forbes constantly posts shit like this, and I constantly spend my time at leadership seminars debunking poor consultants who get paid to read these claims credulously. Look at this highlighted text. Does it make sense to you that simply writing your financial goals down would result in a 10x increase in your income? Because if it does, let me make you an offer on this sick ass bridge.

Thankfully, Forbes also makes the mistake of citing their sources. Let's check to see where this hyperlink goes:

SidSavara. I've never heard of this site, but the About section tells me that Sid is "a technology leader who empowers teams to grow into their best selves. He is a life-long learner enjoys developing software, leading teams in delivering mission critical projects, playing guitar and watching football and basketball."

That doesn't mean anything. What are his LinkedIn credentials? With the caveat that anyone can lie on Linkedin, Mr. Savara appears to be a Software Engineer. Which is fine! I'm glad software engineers exist! But Sid's got nothing in his professional history which suggests he knows shit about finance. So I'm already pretty skeptical of his website, which is increasingly looking like a personal fart-huffing blog.

The article itself repeats the credulous claim made in the Forbes story earlier, but this time, provides no link for the 3% story. Mr. Savara is smarter than his colleages at Forbes, it's much wiser to just make shit up.

HOWEVER. I am not the first person to have followed this rabbit hole. Because at the very top of this article, there is a disclaimer.

Uh oh!

Sid's been called out before, and in the follow up to this article, he reveals the truth.

You can guess where this is going.

So to go back to the VERY beginning of this post, both Pocket/Good Housekeeping and Forbes failed to do even the most basic of research, taking the wild claim that writing down your budget may increase your income by 10x on good faith and the word of a(n admittedly honest about his shortcomings) software engineer.

Why did I spend 30 minutes to make a tumblr post about this? Mostly to show off how smart I am, but also to remind folks of just how flimsy any claim on the internet can be. Click those links, follow those sources, and when the sources stop linking, ask why.

[fingertipsmp3]

I will never understand people who post tiktoks of them being mansplained to in the gym or someplace and they’re just nodding and smiling at the guy or being civil with him.. I’d end up being filmed by some bystander absolutely shrieking my head off as soon as the guy tells me I need to lose 50 pounds or that I’m doing the wrong workout

[somirejinish]

Navigating Legal Waters: A Comprehensive Guide to Finding the Best Legal Representation in Dubai

In the dynamic landscape of Dubai's legal domain, securing adept legal counsel is paramount for individuals and businesses alike. Among the myriad options available, Somi Rejinish Lawyer emerges as a beacon of excellence, offering a spectrum of legal services tailored to diverse needs.

As a leading law firm in Dubai, Somi Rejinish Lawyer prides itself on its commitment to professionalism, expertise, and client-centric approach. With a team of seasoned legal experts, including top legal consultants, legal advisors, and experienced lawyers, the firm stands out for its unwavering dedication to delivering optimal results for its clients.

For those navigating criminal law matters in Dubai, Somi Rejinish Lawyer boasts a cadre of adept criminal lawyers with a deep understanding of local laws and regulations. From defending clients against criminal charges to providing strategic legal counsel, their expertise ensures comprehensive legal representation at every stage.

In the realm of corporate law, Somi Rejinish Lawyer shines as the go-to destination for businesses seeking sound legal advice and representation. Their corporate lawyers possess a wealth of experience in navigating complex corporate transactions, regulatory compliance, and dispute resolution, making them invaluable allies for businesses operating in Dubai's vibrant corporate landscape.

Moreover, Somi Rejinish Lawyer caters to the diverse legal needs of individuals and businesses alike, offering specialized services in areas such as commercial law, real estate law, family law, and international law. Whether it's drafting contracts, resolving disputes, or navigating intricate legal frameworks, their team of professional lawyers ensures meticulous attention to detail and a steadfast commitment to achieving favorable outcomes for their clients.

One of the hallmarks of Somi Rejinish Lawyer is its reputation as a trusted advisor and advocate in the legal arena. Clients rely on the firm not only for its legal expertise but also for its unwavering dedication to upholding their rights and interests with integrity and diligence.

Furthermore, Somi Rejinish Lawyer distinguishes itself as a leader in providing comprehensive legal solutions tailored to the unique needs of its clients. Whether it's navigating complex international legal matters or advocating for clients in high-stakes litigation, the firm's holistic approach ensures that clients receive the personalized attention and strategic guidance they deserve.

Somi Rejinish Lawyer stands out as a premier destination for individuals and businesses seeking top-tier legal representation in Dubai. With a team of highly skilled legal professionals, a commitment to excellence, and a track record of success, the firm continues to set the standard for legal excellence in the region. Whether facing criminal charges, navigating corporate complexities, or seeking resolution in family matters, clients can trust Somi Rejinish Lawyer to provide the expertise and advocacy they need to achieve their legal goals.

[abbaslakhakc]

Both civil and court cases include a plaintiff Asset Forfeiture and a defendant. practicing at the Criminal Bar with a wealth of experience in a wide variety of cases.